Is the curve really generated beforehand? Crikey, that doesn't seem to make much sense. How do they equivocate? They must have some sort of focus group. Why not make that focus group the actual test takers? If they're not creating a curve, why in the hell do they take 4 weeks to publish results?

If this is true, though, ilikebaseball is probably going to be dead-on again about the curve being -13/-14 as the LSAC probably has tendencies like any other person/institution.

Wieters wrote:Is the curve really generated beforehand? Crikey, that doesn't seem to make much sense. How do they equivocate? They must have some sort of focus group. Why not make that focus group the actual test takers? If they're not creating a curve, why in the hell do they take 4 weeks to publish results?

If this is true, though, ilikebaseball is probably going to be dead-on again about the curve being -13/-14 as the LSAC probably has tendencies like any other person/institution.

I think they use the experimentals to predict how test takers will perform?

Wieters wrote:Is the curve really generated beforehand? Crikey, that doesn't seem to make much sense. How do they equivocate? They must have some sort of focus group. Why not make that focus group the actual test takers? If they're not creating a curve, why in the hell do they take 4 weeks to publish results?

If this is true, though, ilikebaseball is probably going to be dead-on again about the curve being -13/-14 as the LSAC probably has tendencies like any other person/institution.

Wieters wrote:Is the curve really generated beforehand? Crikey, that doesn't seem to make much sense. How do they equivocate? They must have some sort of focus group. Why not make that focus group the actual test takers? If they're not creating a curve, why in the hell do they take 4 weeks to publish results?

If this is true, though, ilikebaseball is probably going to be dead-on again about the curve being -13/-14 as the LSAC probably has tendencies like any other person/institution.

Improper use of equivocate

Caught me, red-handed. Equate, obviously.

Thanks for the responses and link otherwise. I still don't quite understand how they take so long to publish results, though. I understand this isn't a pass/fail test, but the wait still seems unnecessarily long. Apart from the curve, everything else they release to us seems pretty academic. You would think they could scan answer sheets/writing samples and put people into percentages in less time than a month.

Wieters wrote:Is the curve really generated beforehand? Crikey, that doesn't seem to make much sense. How do they equivocate? They must have some sort of focus group. Why not make that focus group the actual test takers? If they're not creating a curve, why in the hell do they take 4 weeks to publish results?

If this is true, though, ilikebaseball is probably going to be dead-on again about the curve being -13/-14 as the LSAC probably has tendencies like any other person/institution.

Improper use of equivocate

Caught me, red-handed. Equate, obviously.

Thanks for the responses and link otherwise. I still don't quite understand how they take so long to publish results, though. I understand this isn't a pass/fail test, but the wait still seems unnecessarily long. Apart from the curve, everything else they release to us seems pretty academic. You would think they could scan answer sheets/writing samples and put people into percentages in less time than a month.

I completely agree with you. The only reason I can think of for why they take so long is that they are looking at test taker response statistics and then meticulously go over every question and answer to see if they want to remove any of the questions from grading (which they sometimes do). They probably have multiple people doing this and then they debate all the questions that are candidates for possible grading removal. (Just my crazy conspiracy theory, but still think it takes too long!)

Wieters wrote:Thanks for the responses and link otherwise. I still don't quite understand how they take so long to publish results, though. I understand this isn't a pass/fail test, but the wait still seems unnecessarily long. Apart from the curve, everything else they release to us seems pretty academic. You would think they could scan answer sheets/writing samples and put people into percentages in less time than a month.

I completely agree with you. The only reason I can think of for why they take so long is that they are looking at test taker response statistics and then meticulously go over every question and answer to see if they want to remove any of the questions from grading (which they sometimes do). They probably have multiple people doing this and then they debate all the questions that are candidates for possible grading removal. (Just my crazy conspiracy theory, but still think it takes too long!)

literarylawyer wrote:LG - DEATH. Sped through the first two, which were fine, but then skipped to the fourth b/c it had 8 questions....didn't finish the 4th or the 3rd. SO frustrated.

Essentially finished LG, thinking "THAT WAS EXPERIMENTAL" over and over again...until I reached LR3 and all my hopes withered away...

I had the same test and all of this was TOTALLY me. Especially the praying for it to be experimental only to find that last LR waiting for me. Such a let down

And that's exactly how I felt when I lurked through all 16 pages and saw your post.

Also...a pretty unabashed loathing for anyone who said LG was easy...but I take some of it back, because a lot of the "LG - easy" people said RC was hard. So maybe it's a strengths & weaknesses trade-off.

THIS!!! I bombed LG, thought RC was somewhat dense but nothing too crazy. But then again, unlike a lot of people, RC never came too difficult for me, whereas LG has always been much more of a battle for me.

Wieters wrote:Thanks for the responses and link otherwise. I still don't quite understand how they take so long to publish results, though. I understand this isn't a pass/fail test, but the wait still seems unnecessarily long. Apart from the curve, everything else they release to us seems pretty academic. You would think they could scan answer sheets/writing samples and put people into percentages in less time than a month.

I completely agree with you. The only reason I can think of for why they take so long is that they are looking at test taker response statistics and then meticulously go over every question and answer to see if they want to remove any of the questions from grading (which they sometimes do). They probably have multiple people doing this and then they debate all the questions that are candidates for possible grading removal. (Just my crazy conspiracy theory, but still think it takes too long!)

tommypickles wrote:I have a feeling the curve will definitely be at least -13, but I really think the curve will be -14. Especially since the December curve is usually about -13, last year's December test (PT 71) was -14 and this year's June test was also a -13 and June usually has the tightest curve. And due to the difficult time consuming games and the harder second LR section and that it would be beneficial for all of us.

I had never felt this feeling before. I could tear my heartbeat in my ears. My stomach felt like it was going to fall out my butt. I had this lump in my throat like after you dry-swallow a big pill. I hated LSAC. I hated her!

Wieters wrote:Is the curve really generated beforehand? Crikey, that doesn't seem to make much sense. How do they equivocate? They must have some sort of focus group. Why not make that focus group the actual test takers? If they're not creating a curve, why in the hell do they take 4 weeks to publish results?

If this is true, though, ilikebaseball is probably going to be dead-on again about the curve being -13/-14 as the LSAC probably has tendencies like any other person/institution.

Improper use of equivocate

Caught me, red-handed. Equate, obviously.

Thanks for the responses and link otherwise. I still don't quite understand how they take so long to publish results, though. I understand this isn't a pass/fail test, but the wait still seems unnecessarily long. Apart from the curve, everything else they release to us seems pretty academic. You would think they could scan answer sheets/writing samples and put people into percentages in less time than a month.

1) If there are weather related cancellations to any test center anywhere, that adds on 2 weeks.2) Data processing--scanning all that shit in3) Cancellations, complaints being called in, reports filed by proctors at TCs4) Cheating review5) I believe they wait until the LSAT is administered at all international locations, which can be a while afterward

ETA: Oh, also mail time from TC to LSAC

Yeah, I suppose these are all considerations.

I don't have a point of reference re. other standardized tests to know whether the LSAC takes particularly long, but wah.